Statistics

Why do so many people in the US believe in socialism?

I've been reading and writing on this forum for a while and I've noticed that many people in the United States honestly believe in socialism (or social state, which is similar). It's kinda surprising for me. I mean, you live in a country that is a world's superpower because of being a free-market capitalistic state since its beginning and that have economically defeated almost all the commies.

I personally live in one of those former commiestates and since I was born, I see the real effects of socialism. So I just wanted to clear some things up.

Socialist claim all people in socialism are equal and have basic needs provided by the state. Well, theoretically - yes. Practically - it's not so nice. There is a nice quote about socialism: all animals are equal but some are more equal. In fact, socialism makes 99% of the society an underclass or workers and 1% of the society their rulers. Moreover, that dream of having all basic needs provided is only a dream. In Eastern bloc countries, buying a toilet paper was a major achievement. All the time socialistic economies were suffering from lacks of supply. This: [link] is a Polish 'kartka' from the January 1989 - some kind of bond used by the government to regulate demand. Each Polish citizen was allowed to buy only as much meat/milk/toilet paper/gas/bread/etc. as was written on his/her 'kartka'. This particular 'kartka' allowed him/her to buy 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) of meat a month. Not only a citizen needs were limited by the government but also actually buying this small portion was quite hard. This is a famous photo from the 80s showing Polish meat shop: [link] You can see there is almost no meat - nothing surprising in socialistic economy. Another famous photo from Poland in the 80s: [link] Those people are not waiting for the newest iPhone, they're waiting for toilet paper. Lacks of supply in those socialistic heavens were so frequent that Polish people needed humanitarian aid from (that's ironically) the Western countries, described by the socialist as 'a hell where working-class is persecuted by the greedy capitalists'.

But it wasn't only Poland. Czechoslovakia was in top ten of the wealthiest countries in the world before IIWW, far wealthier than adjacent Austria, and because it was not destroyed during that war, in 1946 it were even few positions higher. In 1989 the same Czechoslovakia was a poor cousin of Mozart's motherland. Eastern part of Germany was much wealthier than the south part in the past but after II World War East Germany went under Russian sphere of influence while South Germany (Bavaria in particular) went under capitalistic American administration. Any effects? Bavaria is currently one of the wealthiest regions in Europe while former GDR is suffering poverty and social exclusion. Not to mention Ukraine, that, because of its great soil, was called 'Europe's silo' and under great socialistic management suffered from hunger.

What was the origin of that problems? Well, the most important one, alongside centralism, was development of a 'a new human being', as the socialists claimed. According to propaganda, it was a new man, proud of being part of a worldwide working class. In reality, there was no working class. That 'new human being' is currently called 'homo sovieticus' and used as a perfect example of destroying effects of the socialism to the society. People born and raised in Eastern bloc are unable and not willing to manage their lives. Although they supposedly are part of a working class, they actually do not work. It's a proverb in Polish: czy się stoi, czy się leży, tysiąc złotych się należy which means no matter if you stand, no matter if you lie (on bed), you still get your pay-check paid. This is a metaphor perfectly describing socialistic way of live - the state provided everything (starting with kindergarten for your kids, by free apartments ending with state pension), no matter if someone is working hard or not. Moreover, working hard doesn't give you anything more because all money you earn you spend on taxes to support those one who don't work. That's where do those lacks of supply come from - people soon discovered that there is no point in working. People are indifferent, they don't care about the others (there is no charity, no non-governmental organisations, no neighbourhood watch etc. - basically there is no private initiative), are obedient to the government and its actions. Public property is disrespected because if it belongs to the state, it belongs to no one so petty theft are common.

So, my question is, if you have seen socialism failing, why do you still believe in it?

Socialism? Huh I though they favored Social Democrazy, you know same thing but with democrazy and with out the whole people revolution, cause that would pretty soon turn into elitist ruled communism(which it essentially is Socialism but with elite leading the mass and not masses, leading mass).

Hahaha, Sweden is like the epitome of all hatred because every time the media talks about things going wonderfully well, they compare us to Sweden (I'm French) always! Scandinavian countries always win, even the people are better looking! It's hard to live with (We have better weather *consolation*)

American socialism is collecting massive taxes off rich investors who make their money enslaving people in third world nations. Our social programs are paid for by sweatshop labor worldwide, especially China

Not really. Compared to Western nations the USSR and satellite states were very liberal in the matter of sexual activity. Just to point out: gay people were undergoing electroshocks in 1960s in Great Britain to "cure" them (!) while in the communist states gay people were highly recognized members of artistic Bohemia.

Amerian socialism is paid for in sweatsshops all over the world. American investor pay huge taxes off profits they make worldwide off sweatship labor...hooray for socialism, it funds out bum class white people worldwide suffer

It is somewhat popular amongst other nations as well, especially the youth. But it is probably because of the fact it promotes equality, where as America believes in "equal opportunity" not "equality of results", whereas in communism and socialism everybody is given the same thing. Furthermore, communism and socialism offer "a definite goal, inspiration and ideal, a positive faith" (Ayn Rand). When comparing the ideals offered by such political systems in comparison to democracy, a bunch of old guys in a stuffy room making our decisions doesn't seem as great. Socialism puts more power into the hands of the people, and communism has a board of people controlling things too, but at least people are "more equal" as a result.

the rich will get richer and the rest will get welfare as long as people in third world sweatshops are willing to fund our socialism through wall street investors and the taxes they pay from profitting by all that sweatshop labor

I guess the middle class is just... Disappearing now. We need to stop sending our money out to other countries, and start bringing them back in. Sure, it would cost businesses more but the economy would certainly start to look up. What can we do now?

I think you only descripe the extremes of socialism right now. And too much is never good. But I think socialism has also good sides. because I think its weird that people have hunger in for example a rich country as the US. And what's bad about helping people who have it bad at the moment, or are not able to work anymore? And no, I don't think that you should give them everything they want because then there is no need to work anymore. But just the basics.

That is, quite possibly, the single most terrifying stament I have ever heard!

Government CAN NOT help everybody, well, not without some tradeoffs...

First and formost, at the expense of our indevidual freedoms and liberty. Allowing the government to "help everybody" means that the government choses your income via your welfare chack. Indirectly that means the government is chosing what clothes you buy, what house you live in, etc. They also chose what food you can eat by way of foodstamps and/or WIC. Once the government can make even those most basic and benign choices for you, what CANT they do?

Second of all, the cost of all of this would be astronomical. undrstand that social wlfare is not the only type of welfare, but there is also corperate welfare (and the people who run those corperations are part of "everybody" arent they? Thus deserved of the governments help) Combined, these two institutions would, and actually are, crippling our financial stability.

I have no problem with people needing help every once and a while, though, I dont discount that government can have a small part to play in aid, I think it should be based primarily on community, and not wholley on the government as it is now. Giving them that kind of control andpower is truely scary.

The irony is that most personal welfare only exists because we're giving massive corporate welfare in the form of wage subsidies because companies refuse to pay living wages. You can't say the private sector should take care of something when the private sector refuses to take care of it.

Its much more of a cultural problem then it is an economic problem. If people were willing to help folks out where they can, if people could ask their families and neighbors, and give back to them in return when they needed it, your telling me we'd be worse off for it? We ought to forgo giving each other a helping hand and just rely compleatly on the government instead because were not living high on the hog either? How does that make any sense? Attitudes like that is exactly why I say that this is a cultural problem. Little test:

Which statment would bemore apt to make our communities and our nation stronger?

"Oh, well bless your heart Mrs. Smith, your husband lost his job? Well, you should apply for benefits."

"Oh, well bless your heart Mrs. Smith, your husband lost his job? Well, Ill be over with some extra food this eavening. Its not much, but were happy to help where we can"

If all of the Smith family's neighbors and friends were willing to do this, they would have need for very little government assistance while Mr. Smith was in between jobs. Similarly, if one of their friends came on hard times after that, they would likely be able to rely on their friends as well.

Of course, this would mean that people would not only be expected to live with less, and inside their means, but it would mean that they would have to be willing to give, something the people of this country are not very good at anymore.

Like I said, government aid has its place, but I wish we could rely on it as little as possible and rely on each other more. We'd be undoubtedly better for it.

Im expecting no such thing. Im suggesting we subject products and commodities to the rigors of the market and basic supply and demand principals instead of keeping prices artificially low by way of subsidies. Because guess what? The price of something like milk might skyrocket for a while, but then demand would plument bringing with it, the price. And if your buisness cant survive without a handout in the first place, then I suppose you ought to make room for entrepeneurs who's buisness's can.

A simple example would be income level. Let's say there are two neighbors, one being just one dollar below the poverty rate and the second one being just one dollar above. Government helps the first one only, because it's a emotionless bureaucratic machine. They don't care if the second guy is almost as poor as the first one, they see numbers one and according to numbers, only the first neighbor deserves to be helped. Charity on the other hand use less income-oriented ways to determine if someone needs help. A person working in a charity organization would go to both neighbors and see they both need help.

Another example. Some people (e.g. drug sellers) officially have low income, though they work in the gray market so their actual income is quite high. Government would give that people money, which is obviously totally unfair! As I have said, they see numbers only. Charity organization would check out how is that person doing, and seeing a black Escalate on driveway I guess they wouldn't give that person any help.

"Charity on the other hand use less income-oriented ways to determine if someone needs help. A person working in a charity organization would go to both neighbors and see they both need help."

Spoken by someone who's never actually asked for help from a charity.

Hint: I have, and they're just as picky about income requirements as the government is. Nor do most charities actually come to your house, check around, etc.; they ask for just the same income documents and applications as the government.

Fortunately I wasn't forced to help for charity but my mom volunteers in local church charity organizations so she knows how it works inside. I guess you must've made a wrong impression on a person working in that charitable organization (and, forgive me but I have to say it, I wouldn't be surprised at all, knowing your manner of posing superiority to the others) or you just picked the wrong organization. In most charity organizations they never refuse to help, even if that help would be smaller than expected.